- Регистрация
- 17 Февраль 2018
- Сообщения
- 40 832
- Лучшие ответы
- 0
- Реакции
- 0
- Баллы
- 8 093
Offline
The MRI showed a problem in a brain artery that should have been flagged, man claims.
Sign at the entrance to the Prenuvo Clinic in Manhattan. Credit: Getty | Erik McGregor
A New York man is suing Prenuvo, a celebrity-endorsed whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provider, claiming that the company missed clear signs of trouble in his $2,500 whole-body scan—and if it hadn’t, he could have acted to avert the catastrophic stroke he suffered months later.
Sean Clifford and his legal team claim that his scan on July 15, 2023, showed a 60 percent narrowing and irregularity in a major artery in his brain—the proximal right middle cerebral artery, a branch of the most common artery involved in acute strokes. But Prenuvo’s reviews of the scan did not flag the finding and otherwise reported everything in his brain looked normal; there was “no adverse finding.” (You can read Prenuvo’s report and see Clifford’s subsequent imaging here.)
Clifford suffered a massive stroke on March 7, 2024. Subsequent imaging found that the proximal right middle cerebral artery progressed to a complete blockage, causing the stroke. Clifford suffered paralysis of his left hand and leg, general weakness on his left side, vision loss and permanent double vision, anxiety, depression, mood swings, cognitive deficits, speech problems, and permanent difficulties with all daily activities.
He filed his lawsuit against Prenuvo in September 2024 in the New York State Supreme Court. In the lawsuit, he argues that if he had known of the problem, he could have undergone stenting or other minimally invasive measures to prevent the stroke.
Ongoing litigation
In the legal proceedings since, Prenuvo, a California-based company, has tried to limit the damages that Clifford could seek, first by trying to force arbitration and then by trying to apply California laws to the New York case, as California law caps malpractice damages. The company failed on both counts. In a December ruling, a judge also denied Prenovo’s attempts to shield the radiologist who reviewed Clifford’s scan, William A. Weiner, DO, of East Rockaway, New York.
Notably, Weiner has had his medical license suspended in connection with an auto insurance scheme, in which Weiner was accused of falsifying findings on MRI scans.
In comments to Radiology Business in December, Neal Bhushan, the lawyer representing Clifford, said, “I am pleased that the court sided with us. This ruling reaffirms the strength and merits of our medical malpractice and negligence claims, and we look forward to continuing to litigate this matter in New York County Supreme Court.”
Prenuvo has declined to comment on the litigation but it told The Washington Post, “We take any allegation seriously and are committed to addressing it through the appropriate legal process. Our focus remains on delivering safe, high quality, proactive care to the patients who place their trust in us every day.”
Ongoing debate
Prenuvo is one of the most prominent providers of elective whole-body MRIs. It got an endorsement from Kim Kardashian, and its investors include supermodel Cindy Crawford and 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.
Overall, Clifford’s case spotlights the ongoing controversy over the use of elective whole-body MRI scans. They are marketed as a way to catch problems early and give patients peace of mind about their health. But many doctors have significant complaints about the scans, which are generally not covered by insurance, including that they serve the worried wealthy, further widening health care disparities in the country. They also raise concerns that they are likely to identify insignificant abnormalities that will only lead to unnecessary medical appointments, tests, and treatments.
A standing statement from the American College of Radiology says there is not sufficient evidence to justify the scans.
To date, there is no documented evidence that total body screening is cost-efficient or effective in prolonging life. In addition, the ACR is concerned that such procedures will lead to the identification of numerous non-specific findings that will not ultimately improve patients’ health but will result in unnecessary follow-up testing and procedures, as well as significant expense.
Clifford’s case represents the other end of the spectrum, where reviews of whole-body, non-specific scans, which are not aimed at looking for anything specific, could miss a critical finding.
The top comment on a medical subreddit conversation of Clifford’s legal case elaborated on this concern: “I think their business model has been predicated on getting two types of people: worried well or very sick, and are not appropriately set up to handle patients with real but subtle findings their MRI and radiologists aren’t well suited to detect.”
Sign at the entrance to the Prenuvo Clinic in Manhattan. Credit: Getty | Erik McGregor
A New York man is suing Prenuvo, a celebrity-endorsed whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provider, claiming that the company missed clear signs of trouble in his $2,500 whole-body scan—and if it hadn’t, he could have acted to avert the catastrophic stroke he suffered months later.
Sean Clifford and his legal team claim that his scan on July 15, 2023, showed a 60 percent narrowing and irregularity in a major artery in his brain—the proximal right middle cerebral artery, a branch of the most common artery involved in acute strokes. But Prenuvo’s reviews of the scan did not flag the finding and otherwise reported everything in his brain looked normal; there was “no adverse finding.” (You can read Prenuvo’s report and see Clifford’s subsequent imaging here.)
Clifford suffered a massive stroke on March 7, 2024. Subsequent imaging found that the proximal right middle cerebral artery progressed to a complete blockage, causing the stroke. Clifford suffered paralysis of his left hand and leg, general weakness on his left side, vision loss and permanent double vision, anxiety, depression, mood swings, cognitive deficits, speech problems, and permanent difficulties with all daily activities.
He filed his lawsuit against Prenuvo in September 2024 in the New York State Supreme Court. In the lawsuit, he argues that if he had known of the problem, he could have undergone stenting or other minimally invasive measures to prevent the stroke.
Ongoing litigation
In the legal proceedings since, Prenuvo, a California-based company, has tried to limit the damages that Clifford could seek, first by trying to force arbitration and then by trying to apply California laws to the New York case, as California law caps malpractice damages. The company failed on both counts. In a December ruling, a judge also denied Prenovo’s attempts to shield the radiologist who reviewed Clifford’s scan, William A. Weiner, DO, of East Rockaway, New York.
Notably, Weiner has had his medical license suspended in connection with an auto insurance scheme, in which Weiner was accused of falsifying findings on MRI scans.
In comments to Radiology Business in December, Neal Bhushan, the lawyer representing Clifford, said, “I am pleased that the court sided with us. This ruling reaffirms the strength and merits of our medical malpractice and negligence claims, and we look forward to continuing to litigate this matter in New York County Supreme Court.”
Prenuvo has declined to comment on the litigation but it told The Washington Post, “We take any allegation seriously and are committed to addressing it through the appropriate legal process. Our focus remains on delivering safe, high quality, proactive care to the patients who place their trust in us every day.”
Ongoing debate
Prenuvo is one of the most prominent providers of elective whole-body MRIs. It got an endorsement from Kim Kardashian, and its investors include supermodel Cindy Crawford and 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki.
Overall, Clifford’s case spotlights the ongoing controversy over the use of elective whole-body MRI scans. They are marketed as a way to catch problems early and give patients peace of mind about their health. But many doctors have significant complaints about the scans, which are generally not covered by insurance, including that they serve the worried wealthy, further widening health care disparities in the country. They also raise concerns that they are likely to identify insignificant abnormalities that will only lead to unnecessary medical appointments, tests, and treatments.
A standing statement from the American College of Radiology says there is not sufficient evidence to justify the scans.
To date, there is no documented evidence that total body screening is cost-efficient or effective in prolonging life. In addition, the ACR is concerned that such procedures will lead to the identification of numerous non-specific findings that will not ultimately improve patients’ health but will result in unnecessary follow-up testing and procedures, as well as significant expense.
Clifford’s case represents the other end of the spectrum, where reviews of whole-body, non-specific scans, which are not aimed at looking for anything specific, could miss a critical finding.
The top comment on a medical subreddit conversation of Clifford’s legal case elaborated on this concern: “I think their business model has been predicated on getting two types of people: worried well or very sick, and are not appropriately set up to handle patients with real but subtle findings their MRI and radiologists aren’t well suited to detect.”
